WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Technology

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (Delaware)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00956, W.D. Tex., 10/14/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and has an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones infringe a patent related to methods for varying the rate of channel quality feedback in a wireless communication system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns optimizing the efficiency of wireless networks by dynamically adjusting how frequently a mobile device reports connection quality to a base station, a core function in modern cellular communication.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-11-02	’876 Patent Application Filing Date
2009-01-13	’876 Patent Issue Date
2020-10-14	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,477,876, "Variable rate channel quality feedback in a wireless communication system," issued January 13, 2009 (the “’876 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In wireless systems, mobile devices must report channel quality to a base station to ensure efficient data transmission. The patent identifies that performing this reporting at a constant rate is inefficient; it consumes transmission resources and processing power at the mobile device even when no data is being sent to it, and may not provide feedback fast enough when data transmission is active (’876 Patent, col. 2:46-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the rate of channel quality feedback is variable. A mobile station uses a slower, resource-conserving feedback rate when there is no data transmission from the base station. Upon detecting an incoming data transmission, the mobile station switches to a faster, more frequent feedback rate to allow the base station to more accurately adapt to current channel conditions (’876 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-19). This dynamic adjustment is illustrated in Figure 3, which depicts a "Slow rate CQ [Channel Quality] feedback" period (603) switching to a "Fast rate CQ feedback" period (610-614) upon commencement of transmission from the base station (501).
• Technical Importance: This variable-rate approach aims to improve overall system throughput by using limited wireless resources more efficiently, providing high-fidelity channel information only when it is most needed during active data transfer (’876 Patent, col. 1:23-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not explicitly identify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference "exemplary claims" from an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).
• As a representative independent claim, Claim 1 of the ’876 Patent is a method claim comprising the following essential elements:
  • Varying a rate for reporting channel quality information from a mobile station to a base station as a function of the presence or absence of a reception of a data transmission at the mobile station.
  • The mobile station reports channel quality information at a first rate in the absence of a reception of a data transmission from the base station.
  • Upon detection of a reception of a data transmission from the base station, the mobile station reports channel quality information at a second rate for a prescribed duration.
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of any asserted dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶17). Given the defendant, these are understood to be OnePlus smartphones, though no specific models are named.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the ’876 Patent" (Compl. ¶17). It does not, however, provide any specific technical details regarding the operation of the accused channel quality feedback mechanisms in these products. The complaint also makes no allegations regarding the products' commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by reference to claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶18). The narrative theory of infringement, as can be inferred from the patent and the nature of the accused products, is that OnePlus smartphones, when operating on wireless networks, implement a method of varying the rate of their channel quality reporting. This rate is allegedly slower during idle periods and becomes faster when the device is actively receiving data, thereby practicing the method claimed in the ’876 Patent. The complaint itself provides no factual support or technical evidence for these allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A central issue will be the evidence Plaintiff proffers to demonstrate that the accused devices perform the claimed method. The question for the court will be: What specific technical evidence shows that the accused devices' channel quality reporting rate is varied "as a function of the presence or absence of a reception of a data transmission," as required by the claims?
• Technical Question: A potential dispute may arise over the trigger for the change in feedback rate. The analysis may focus on whether the accused devices change their feedback rate in direct response to detecting a data transmission itself, or if the rate is controlled by a more general network command that only correlates with data transmission.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific disputed terms. However, based on the language of representative Claim 1, the following terms may be central to the case.

• The Term: "as a function of the presence or absence of a reception of a data transmission"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the causal link required for infringement. The outcome of the case may depend on how directly the change in reporting rate must be tied to the act of receiving data.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the plain meaning of "as a function of" is broad and covers any dependency, including indirect control where a network instruction to change the feedback rate is sent in anticipation of a data transmission.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the mobile station itself detecting a transmission and then varying its feedback rate, suggesting a direct cause-and-effect relationship (e.g., "upon detection of a reception of a data transmission from the base station, the mobile station reports channel quality information at a second rate...") (’876 Patent, col. 8:26-29). This could support a narrower construction requiring the data reception itself to be the direct trigger.

• The Term: "prescribed duration"

  • Context and Importance: This term in Claim 1 appears to place a temporal limit on the period of faster feedback. Infringement could depend on whether the accused functionality operates for a defined period or indefinitely while data is being received.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue this term simply means the feedback rate is faster for the duration of the data transmission, whatever that duration may be.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses a scenario where, after a "prescribed period of time," the mobile station would "resume reporting of rate feedback at the first rate" if transmission has ceased (’876 Patent, col. 5:14-18). This suggests the "prescribed duration" is a defined time window, which may support a narrower interpretation that could be distinct from the actual length of a given data transmission.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users to operate the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the products are "especially made or adapted for infringing the '876 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶16). Both allegations are made without specific factual support.
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the "service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint relies entirely on an unprovided exhibit, a key question is what technical evidence the plaintiff will produce to show that the accused smartphones actually perform the specific steps of the patented method, particularly the dynamic shifting of the channel quality feedback rate based on data reception.
• The case may also hinge on claim construction: A core legal question will be how the court construes the term "prescribed duration" from Claim 1. Whether this term is interpreted to mean a pre-determined, fixed time period for faster feedback, or more broadly as the variable duration of an active data transmission, could be dispositive for the infringement analysis.